Cancer and Sexual Problems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: There are many data on sexual problems subsequent to cancer and its treatment, although the likelihood of problems in specific individuals depends on multiple variables. AIMS: To gain knowledge about the risks of sexual problems among persons with cancer and to provide recommendations concerning their prevention and optimal treatment. METHODS: A committee of multidisciplinary specialists was formed as part of a larger International Consultation working with urologic and sexual medicine societies over a 2-year period to review the result of chronic illness management on sexual function and satisfaction. The aims, goals, data collection techniques, and report format were defined by a central committee. MAIN OUTCOMES MEASURES: Expert consensus was based on evidence-based medical and psychosocial literature review, extensive group discussion, and an open presentation with a substantial discussion period. RESULTS: Cancer and cancer treatments have both direct and indirect effects on physiologic, psychological, and interpersonal factors that can all impact negatively on sexual function and satisfaction. Data on the likelihood of specific sexual problems occurring with cancer and its management vary depending on prediagnosis function, patient response, support from the treatment team, specific treatments used, proactive counseling, and efforts to mitigate potential problems. This summary details available literature concerning the pathophysiologic and psychological impacts of cancer diagnosis and treatment on sexual function, plus recommendations for their prevention and management. CONCLUSIONS: Cancer and its management have a significant negative impact on sexual function and satisfaction. These negative effects can be somewhat mitigated by understanding prediagnosis sexual functioning level, counseling, careful treatment choices, and, when indicated, therapy post-treatment using educational, psychological, pharmacologic, and mechanical modalities.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.029 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".